Nancy Rothwell
MRC Professor, University of Manchester and Chairman, Biosciences Federation Animal Science Group

https://doi.org/10.36866/pn.55.11

The proposed new primate centre at Cambridge University has attracted much publicity. The Deputy Prime Minister granted planning permission, in spite of protests from animal rights groups, and the basic funding was in place through the award of a JIF bid. But the University of Cambridge decided, after considerable deliberations, not to go ahead. Their decision is understandable. Aside from the significant increase in capital costs, the University had to think about the ongoing security costs and the implications of continuing protests for the University and its neighbours. This was probably an inevitable decision, but a very sad one, not only for British research but also for democracy.

There is no doubt that primates, as our nearest relatives in the animal kingdom, elicit great concern when they are used for biomedical experiments. That concern is shared by the public and by many scientists, including myself. For these reasons legislation on the use of primates is the most stringent. Some research simply cannot move forward without the use of a small number of primates. It is this type of research which is being considered in Cambridge – peer-reviewed, considered carefully by local ethical review, and which would benefit, like the animals it requires, from a new facility. The University of Cambridge cannot endanger its staff and students, cause disruption to local inhabitants or deploy excessive police time, let alone meet the extra projected costs which would inevitably detract from other important research projects. Perhaps it was ambitious to plan a stand-alone primate facility, and it may be helpful to develop such facilities close to smaller units in the research laboratories involved – though in many cases this will attract significant additional costs for management and welfare support.

Recent MORI polls suggest that the vast majority of the British public supports animal experiments – provided rigorous controls are in place. A recent BBC poll attracted over 400,000 votes and found that 93% supported the use of animals in biomedical research. So how can a major research facility be halted in its tracks? The protests against Huntington Life Sciences (HLS, the contract research company located quite close to Cambridge) have featured heavily in the news. SHAC (Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty) has mounted an extensive and sustained campaign to close HLS, involving threatening, abusive and sometimes violent behaviour, not only towards HLS employees, but also against its investors and customers. Thanks to the resilience of its staff and strong government support, HLS remains open and SHAC appears to have failed in its bid to close the company and in gaining widespread public support.

But a new organisation, Stop Primate Experiments at Cambridge (SPEAC), which probably includes many of the members or supporters of SHAC, has found a new target – the proposed Cambridge primate centre. Unlike companies, universities cannot mount extensive security because they are open places of teaching and learning for thousands of students. The vast majority of members (staff and students) of any university will have little in-depth knowledge of how and why animal experiments are conducted and of the strict legislation in place.

The questions now are what does this mean for Cambridge, for animal research in other universities and for UK science in general? SPEAC/SHAC have claimed victory and a new target – the University. The current government, and our Minister for Science in particular, has been outspoken in its support for biomedical research and for the need to use animals. They now need to ensure that legislation is in place and is fully implemented to prevent the harassment of anyone linked with such research. Even when violence is not used, continual threats to scientists, their families, their friends and their neighbours are extremely disturbing.

But the government and the law alone cannot solve this problem. The scientific community has a role and a responsibility. For understandable reasons, only a handful of scientists speak or write publicly about animal research. Knowing the huge public support from many recent polls (completely verified by my own extensive experience of talking to children and the public about such issues), we must all participate more. We are unlikely to change the opinions of extremists, but by gaining the support of a large proportion of UK society we can win the argument.

This article was written on a British Council visit to India. I was surprised when they asked me to talk about experiments on animals and antivivisection groups. This is a small but growing problem in India where many animals are held sacred. My message was that the solution is largely in the hands of the scientific community who should devote some of their precious time to public communication.

Avoiding repetition of the unfortunate events in Cambridge is also partly in our hands. We need to be more active rather than responsive or even passive to the violent actions of a small number of protesters.